Problems at MAN this morning?
 

Anyone know anything about the incident with Ryanair 552 arriving at MAN at 8am this morning?

He ended up blocking off 24R and after a while the VOR/DME for 24L was put into action for arriving aircraft.

The Rookie.

[ 15 August 2001: Message edited by: The Rookie ]

Burst Tyre on landing. Couldn't get clear of the runway. So they used 06R for T/O and LDG, in runs of six a/c at a time.

This situation caused more problems than normal as no other airline would provide the engineering assistance/parts to get it off the runway.Fear of not being reimbursed apparently. :confused:

...and I believe that the Ryanair aircraft bringing the engineering assistance/parts got caught up in the delays for inbound aircraft, just to rub salt in the wound!!!

I was "Air assistant" when it happened. The a/c was literally within feet of leaving a "clear runway".
Later on ground, we were using 24L for deps [up to 9 at a time] and 06R for landings [as many as APC could drag off the stacks. Wr later used 06L fo Dash 8s and ATPs. Was STILL chaos when I left :eek:
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

Chiglet

Interesting!!

Has anyone gone home to think how lucky they were?
How much longer will D1 be the holding point for 24R?

sky 9

lets look at the facts,the ryanair 737 burst his tyres on landing and intially veered left before trying to vacate on the high speed exit at KC,where does D1 come into the incident.When you are cleared to D1 that is the furthest you can go, your clearance limit, if you are unhappy with D1 you can hold back from the holding point,as some acft already do to get a run up for the crossing, D5 may be accecptable on a quite day!!!.All you have to do is ask.

Why was 24L used for departures and 06R for arrivals when the weather (from the ground at least) looked CAVOK? Surely this gave even longer holds than when using 24L for both (the extra time waiting for departures to clear the approach tracks before the next batch of inbounds could come off the stacks)?

I understand 24L was tried for arrivals.However there is no ILS to 24L. There is also no parrallel taxyway. So after the landing roll, aircraft have to back track to exit, making arrival spacing even greater, even without any departures. Sure there is a loop at the end, but sooner or later aircraft have to backtrack. Using both ends is tricky, 24L deps & 06R arrivals, but would be more expeditious, well done to those who made it work.
I would be interested to know why it took almost 8 hours to move the 737, anyone know ? :eek:

Curious Pax
If you use 24L for landing there is no taxyway to get landed aircraft back to the terminals, so they are held in the loop at the end, a maximum of three depending on size, and then taxied back. The taxy back is very time consuming and is in effect wasted time.

Using 06R for landings and 24L for departures will actually provide a higher movement rate than 24L for everything. It may seem cumbersome, but with skill and planning it works well.

Nice job B Watch, sorry I missed it...NOT!!!! :D

[ 19 August 2001: Message edited by: cossack ]

Re The Ryanair Puncture:-
It seems that the senior managers at EGCC must live in a very circular world, for surely, if no one at Man would lend help or equipment for "fear of non payment" then the Airport should have underwritten this value and got the place working quickly again , and if, as some are indicating that Ryanair would not/could not pay, then impound an a/c or two to recover the cost.
Seems rather childish that a situation like this can develop at the airport that likes to brag about its ability!
Will the lack of action by the Airport management mean that other carriers who had to divert will be compensated, or passengers compensated for going to Leeds or Liverpool, instead of Man. It truly is amazing what shortsighted Plonkers run companies today!!!

vfrpilotpb

IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EVEN MORE INTERESTING TO SEE HOW LONG IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN TO MOVE THE ACFT IF THERE WAS NO 2ND RUNWAY AND THE AIRPORT WAS SHUT. MONEY TALKS!!

j17 Hi,

No need to shout, but from an outsiders point of view, if the general opinion is that a company is not able to pay a bill for services or help, it indicates one of two things,
1. The company is not liked for being successful and taking what is regarded as owned markets.
or
2. the company is running on a shoestring and is taking risks.

I rather feel that it is the former rather than the latter, and if I am right from what I have gleaned from earlier postings it is a terrible insight to the business attitude of carriers who share a common workplace at MAN, and possibly a lot to do with the attitude that is fed back to these companies/people from the Man employed staff.

If it was the latter, then one would hope that the CAA would be able to see such shoestring operations and start to check the way things are done, purely for the safety of us, The Flying Public.
There all achieved without shouting!!

vfrpilotpb

I apologise for shouting but I did not realise that capital letters implied shouting. But I was just wondering that if the airfield was closed ,how long would it be before MAPLC got the aircraft moved so it would not lose to much money from aircraft diverting away

I still cann't understand why the 737 was stuck there for so long. Rumour has it that FR would not permit anyone except their own engineers to do the job. They also say that the airport authority wanted to move the aircraft using airbags, but again FR refused. Another was that replacement, or loan, wheels were offered to FR but that FR thought the cost too high. And so they go on. Does anyone know, will anyone know, the real truth?

Scottie Dog

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Lets get to the core of the topic.why did this happen? Did some one land with their feet full on the brakes?

Answers please as we will find out anyway from the CAA/IAA incident reports.

No hiding on this one boys or girls if it is the case.

Capt Bear :eek:

spot on scottie dog.
only ryan air eng allowed to move it , cos they would have to pay anyone else..
same thing in einn about 2 yrs ago.

What legally (as the pratical solution seemed to be there) prevented MAPLC from removing the offending A/C from the runway?

This caused delay and cost to many - why wasn't it moved? With two flights a day they surely can't be looking for more business from FR :rolleyes:

OK Guys..here is what happened.

Aircraft lands and we all know what happened then. No jacks were available at the airport and the airport authority wanted to use airbags to lift the aircraft to repair same, but the airbags to be used were not specific to the B737 and the airport wanted Ryanair to sign an indemity so that if anything went wrong during the lift the airport would not be held responsible, Ryanair refused to allow this to happen and organised to fly their own engineers and equipment from Dublin to fix the problem. But due to the incident all flights were delayed into Manchester and the aircraft carrying the engineers was also delayed. Requests to Manchester ATC to allow this aircraft an earlier slot were refused and thus the situation dragged on.

Make sense..hope so

[ 16 August 2001: Message edited by: Flame ]

Perhaps they should have bulldozed it off the taxiway instead.. ;)